I have the 18-270mm Tamron for times when I travel and am severely limited to a single lens.The image quality is not L standard but it is a good lens. The range is phenomenal and it certainly has a place in my arsenal.

I love reading all the various opinions. Indeed, as BrickR says, I need to decide based on my needs. And that favors the superzoom. I do have a dedicated macro lens. Beyond that, a single lens solution is probably best for now. (Though not set in stone at the moment).

Is there a reason why I should not sell those two lenses and purchase a Tamron 18-270MM F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD lens? One lens. No lens swapping. Lighter camera bag.

Another option is a REFURBISHED Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS for about the same price. Thought it's a Canon, its two immediate drawbacks are that it's refurbished and it has 70mm less reach.

Had I the resources, I would jump on some nicer glass, but that is not an option at the moment.

Any advice or input would be GREATLY appreciated

OK, as it turns out, I own all 4 lenses and have extensive experience with them all. First your kit lenses. They are both better than their price/construction would indicate. The 55-250 is especially good at this price range. It is very sharp in the center and is reasonably sharp across the frame. It has much less barrel distortion and chromatic aberration than either of the super zooms you mentioned. However, neither of these lenses works easily work with circular polarizers since their front elements rotate. but in most other respects they are better than the Canon or Tamron super zooms you mention. Both super zooms suffer from lens creep. The Canon uses 72mm filters, the Tamron 62mm. They are both convenient since there is no need to carry and swap lenses and possibly get dirt in your camera from lens changes. There are certainly less missed shots than when changing lenses. They both have non rotating front elements so you can easily use a polarizing filter, but the Canon, unlike the Tamron, does not come with a lens hood.

The one area the super zooms excel at, of course, is that they are single lens solutions that are very convenient. The Tamron 18-270 PZD is a very compact and very light weight "do it all" one lens solution for travel. It's pluses over the Canon kit pair is that its a one lens solution, has a slightly longer reach, has quiet autofocus, comes with a hood, and has a non rotating front element. From a focal range perspective it obviously covers an extremely wide range. On vacation, you'll almost never miss a shot because you have a lens with the wrong focal length attached. BUT...This lens is slow, V E R Y slow. Its f/3.5 on the wide end and f/6.3 on the long end. It often hunts in very low light especially over 200mm. The auto focus on the Tamron is very quiet but not nearly as fast as Canon USM focusing and no faster then the focusing on the 55-250mm. Tamron's Vibration Control is effective, but noticeably noisy. The VC( vibration control is their IS) seems to work well. Its rated to 4 stops. It really makes the image jump for a second in the view finder when it activates which I find annoying and the VC motor whining during operation is audible. VC must be switched off when on a tripod.

I also have the Canon 18-200mm. It’s a mixed bag whether it or a Tamron is better. The Canon 18-200 has some extreme barrel distortion and very high and noticeable chromatic aberration, but it does tend to be sharper then the Tamron in the corners and the center. For a super zoom, the Tamron's vignetting, barrel distortion, and chromatic aberration are reasonably well controlled. However, since this is a non Canon lens, the automatic in-camera Peripheral Illumination option to correct vignetting, is not available. The focusing of the Canon 18-200 is fairly fast. It’s IS is very quiet and good for at least 3 and maybe 4 stops.

While the Tamron super zoom is clearly better than the Canon 18-200 in a few significant areas, the overall sharpness of my copy the 18-200 makes me prefer it over the Tamron. My Tamron copy may just need calibration so its possible that if I had another example it would be sharper.

Having said all this, I gave the Tamron to my son, the 18-200 to my wife, and I use the Canon 15-85 as my general walk around lens. Other than focal range, its far better than either super zoom in almost every other respect.

Funny thing is that although it's true that superzooms are generally slow lenses, most people only tend to see that f/6.3 at tele end of the zoom.In fact almost all superzooms are actually a bit faster that Canon's 18-55 IS. Meaning the Canon 18-55 IS will step to a narrower aperture sooner (at a lower mm setting) while zooming in (going from 18 end to 55 end) than the superzooms do. I remember my Tamron 18-270 VC (old one) was about a third of a stop faster than the Canon kit lens (except for the 18mm end where both start out at f/3.5). For example my Tamron was still f/4 when the Canon kit lens was f/4.5 at the same mm focal length.

gabebalazs wrote in post #16019018Funny thing is that although it's true that superzooms are generally slow lenses, most people only tend to see that f/6.3 at tele end of the zoom.In fact almost all superzooms are actually a bit faster that Canon's 18-55 IS. Meaning the Canon 18-55 IS will step to a narrower aperture sooner (at a lower mm setting) while zooming in (going from 18 end to 55 end) than the superzooms do. I remember my Tamron 18-270 VC (old one) was about a third of a stop faster than the Canon kit lens (except for the 18mm end where both start out at f/3.5). For example my Tamron was still f/4 when the Canon kit lens was f/4.5 at the same mm focal length.

Super zooms definitely meet a need. Every lens has trade-offs. It really comes down to what our goals are and which trade-offs we're willing to accept in order to meet them. Those trade-offs don't just include performance issues like distortion or softness. They also include things like high price or limited focal range or weight, etc. That's why we argue so much over which lens is better. While some lenses may perform better than others, which is "better" for you or "better" for me is very subjective.

Ceallach62 wrote in post #16018735I love reading all the various opinions. Indeed, as BrickR says, I need to decide based on my needs. And that favors the superzoom. I do have a dedicated macro lens. Beyond that, a single lens solution is probably best for now. (Though not set in stone at the moment).

Thanks everyone.

The new Sigma 18-250 OS HSM MAcro is one of the better superzooms according to reviewers. BuyDig (authorized reseller) has them on ebay for $300 new right now. Great bargain if you go that route.

pulsar123 wrote in post #16017452=pulsar123;16017452]+1 to 18-135 STM - it should minimize lens switching for you, IQ is on par with your kit lenses - reasonably good, and much better than any superzoom (even better than 28-300L, according to photozone.de).

I agree.

I'm a lover of fast primes but I bought the 18-135mm STM to shoot videos on my EOS M,, works great there.

On my 50D and 20D for stills, the 18-135mm STM exhibits some amazing image quality.

I picked mine up for $340 off eBay out of Hong Kong. Big bang for your buck.

I am considering the 18-135. I'll still end up carrying two lenses, but as previously mentioned, it would certainly minimize lens switching. I'm going to research that lens a little more today. In the meantime, is it same to assume that IQ with the 18-135 will overall be superior to the superzooms?

And STM... I understand that is the autofocus motor, but is that the only difference between that and the non-STM model? I don't shoot video, so that's a non-issue. If there are no other benefits or improvements, I wonder if it would be worth the extra $$.

I have a question about the 18-135 (don't want to hyjack, just clarify). I just ordered the old 18-135mm non STM from B&H, there is a note on the site saying the STM function will only work on the T4i. Does anyone know about this? Maybe a misprint??

BlackParrot wrote in post #16022452I have a question about the 18-135 (don't want to hyjack, just clarify). I just ordered the old 18-135mm non STM from B&H, there is a note on the site saying the STM function will only work on the T4i. Does anyone know about this? Maybe a misprint??

No worries. You aren't jackin' the thread.

As I understand it:

The EF-S 18-135 STM lens will work on the T3i, and the lens will auto focus in photo mode. But in video mode the STM will not function which means that the camera will not contuniously auto focus because the T3i does not support the STM function of the lens. The t4i Was optimized to take advantage of the STM.

Latest registered member is MariHarris790 guests, 368 members onlineSimultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.